An analysis of a UK home retrofitting project provides a glimpse into the future massive costs of doing this for an entire country, while not achieving the CO2 emission reduction goal desired per home.

The project architects had hoped for achieving an 80% CO2 decrease by replacing all existing appliances with newer more efficient ones; by increasing full wall insulation; by adding underfloor insulation; and etc.

Instead, a 60% CO2 reduction was achieved. The estimated cost of doing the same for every UK home would amount to a total of $5.6 trillion, which is about $193,000 per home (there are 29 million UK homes). The payback period from the energy savings for each home owner would be 150 years.

Assuming that same style of retrofit was done for the approximately 138 million U.S. homes, which tend to be larger than UK homes, the total retrofit cost would be some $26 trillion for just a 50-60% CO2 reduction.

And that's just for the U.S. residential units. Add on the retrofit cost of all commercial, industrial, and government structures and entire cost for the U.S. would be significantly higher.

It's not just the UK retrofit project that throws real shade on the Green New Deal's insanely expensive concept of retrofitting homes for "maximum" CO2 reductions. A study out of Australia suggests that decreases in both CO2 and total home energy usage would not be significant in long run.

A new peer-reviewed study provides additional evidence that significant parts of the world have not experienced the hypothesized dangerous and rapid global warming impact of CO2 emissions.

Central Asia represents a large swath of the globe's land area where one would expect that the "powerful" temperature impact of humanity's CO2 would be rather robust.

Although the area exhibited warming in the 20th century, it is not much different than earlier warming from periods centuries ago (see graph at bottom).

And there has been a recent late 20th century cooling that is attributed to natural factors.

"[T]he recent cool-moist period from 1985 to 2000 has been related to the Arctic Oscillation...During this recent cool-moist period, ice mass accumulation of the glaciers in the Russian Altai Mountains was observed and Narozhniy and Zemtsov (2011) connected this phenomenon to annual precipitation increased by 8% – 10% especially in winter and spring (April-May) as a result of a strengthening of the zonal circulation over the Altai Mountains.”

Conclusion: Those stubborn facts again get in the way of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming doomsday claims. Central Asia's warming and cooing during both the past and modern era look to be more a function of natural volcano variations and ocean oscillations.

Acidification of ocean waters from human CO2 emissions has raised concerns that aquatic life would be severely impacted. Yet, actual studies testing acidification levels on different species more often than not reveal that sea life is not impaired.

Adding to that empirical evidence is a new study on Atlantic salmon smolt.

"In a test of the above hypothesis, McCormick and Regish examined "the effect of future ocean acidification on the salinity tolerance and early seawater growth of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar smolts."..."Results of the analysis, in the words of the authors, revealed that "ocean acidification will not negatively affect the survival and ion regulatory ability [and, hence, salinity tolerance] of S. salar smolts," Furthermore, McCormick and Regish add that "rather than have a detrimental effect, ocean acidification conditions may actually improve the growth of S. salar in the first 2 weeks after seawater exposure." With respect to this latter parameter, Figure 1 graphically portrays the mean specific growth rates of the fish inhabiting the two seawater pH regimes, revealing 40 percent higher specific growth rates of Atlantic salmon in the ocean acidification treatment compared to ambient seawater pH."

Every country that has attempted to force solar and wind energy sources on their national grid have all discovered the same thing: the cost of retail electricity jumps with the consumer being the ultimate chump that has to fork over more money to the providers.

"RPS "significantly increase average retail electricity prices, with prices increasing by 11% (1.3 cents per kWh) seven years after the policy’s passage into law and 17% (2 cents per kWh) twelve years afterward," the economists write."..."All in all, seven years after passage, consumers in the 29 states had paid $125.2 billion more for electricity than they would have in the absence of the policy,"

And the money flowing out of consumer wallets - for dubious climate change "improvements" - will only keep climbing faster as renewable % goals are increased.

And making the pain even worse for consumers. is the following comment from the researchers:

"But are renewables cost-effective climate policy? They are not. The economists write that "the cost per metric ton of CO2 abated exceeds $130 in all specifications and ranges up to $460, making it at least several times larger than conventional estimates of the social cost of carbon."

That last comment indicates the massive stupidity of today's virtue signaling politicians who could care less about the real impacts on society and constituents when imposing regulatory schemes that have been proven failures wherever implemented.

The Green New Deal, as supported by most Democrats, envisions a U.S. power consumption market that is 100% served by renewable energy sources - primarily solar and wind renewables.

Is it hypothetically possible that either solar or wind, or some combination of the two, could deliver 100% of U.S. energy needs in the future?

Sure, but in reality it would not be practical, nor achievable, nor a desired outcome.

A very gigantic stumbling block to either wind or solar are the ludicrously huge land space requirements that are essentially insurmountable.

Using the total U.S. power 2017 consumption (estimated) as the goal to be met, either the wind or solar solutions would need to be able to generate 97.7 'quads' (97.7 quadrillion BTUs) on a yearly basis. That BTU figure converts to approximately 28,633 annual terrawatts, which in turn translates to an annual 28,633,000,000,000,000 watts consumed.

As the adjacent graphic indicates, whether it's a 100% wind renewable solution or a 100% solar solution, the approximate space needed in the continental U.S. would be astronomical for either, making these energy solutions politically and economically nonviable.

In contrast, even with current reactor technology, the land requirement for a nuclear solution (see green-filled rectangle on map) is a physical sliver of either solar or wind needs. In fact, the land needed by nuclear would amount to an approximate space as small as Connecticut.

And if the U.S. were to pursue a Gen-IV nuclear technology solution, such as molten salt reactors, the new reactors could be placed on the existing nuclear plant sites to use the old radioactive waste as fuel that is currently being stored at nuclear sites. Yes, Gen-IV technology can consume the old stored waste as fuel.

And because nuclear facilities produce energy 24/7/365, they do not require the same natural gas, pumped storage, or battery storage back up capability that wind and solar require, due to their being intermittent sources of energy. (The method of back up needed by renewables will also add to the the total land area requirements, which is not depicted on map image.)

Then there is the issue of new electrical transmission lines to be constructed. Because of geographical size of the solar/wind options, the number of new transmission lines to serve all the different wind/solar energy farms will be multiple times more than that required by the nuclear option.

Finally, as a plus, the Gen-IV technology is safe from melt down or potential containment vessel explosions due to its inherent design fundamentals. Conceivably, due to less risk, the total land needed for such technology might end up being less than the older nuclear plant sites.

Due to land requirements alone, it would behoove politicians of both parties to plan for and promote an industry standard design of the Gen-IV reactor technology to be adopted and installed as quickly as possible. It should become the nation's major source of electricity generation, along with smaller installations of solar and wind where locations favor their utilization - i.e., the sunny and windy regions.

(click on to enlarge)

Note: The land requirements for nuclear, solar, and wind were supplied from this NEI.org article. The adjacent table is a summary of the basic information used to calculate the land requirements assuming that all power consumption for all sectors would be in the form of electricity from non-fossil fuel sources, including transportation and heating. For the above U.S.map image, the square mile size of each U.S. state -- used to visualize the approximate land mass needed for each energy production source. Best case scenarios assumed for solar and wind capacity efficiency; industry average scenario used for nuclear capacity efficiency. Existing hydro power generation (about 2.9% of 2017 total) would slightly reduce amount of land required by wind, solar, and nuclear. Offshore wind farms could be utilized but they may ultimately be 2 to 3 times more costly; and will be exposed to greater natural weather and environmental stresses that cause more frequent operational maintenance/repair that will likely be difficult and lengthy.

Does @AOC's prediction that we are all going to fry within 12 years because of CO2 emissions have any basis in empirical reality? (Or, for that matter, does her #GreenNewDeal utopia?)

Here is a chart from the NOAA National Centers For Environmental Information. It is a plot of the maximum temperatures for the hottest U.S. month - July - going back to 1895.

The trend line (blue line) plotted by NOAA reveals that maximum temperatures in July have been on a declining trend of -0.07°F per century since 1914 through July 2018.

And if the exact same NOAA plot was done for August maximum temperatures - the 2nd hottest month for U.S. summers - there is a declining trend of -0.26°F per century since 1928.

Unequivocally, the recent maximum temperatures over the most recent 5 years, during the two hottest months of summer, are not unprecedented.

Below is a table of the 10 hottest months since 1895, along with the respective global atmospheric CO2 level at the time. The lack of correlation between hottest years and CO2 is striking.

Clearly, all the human CO2 emissions produced during the modern era have not significantly changed the overall trend of maximum temperatures since the early 20th century.

Conclusion: The AOC climate change fearmongering, along with her fellow Green New Deal Democrats', is a narrative without any empirical evidence. The narrative that U.S. adults, children, and grandchildren will to survive in a 'living hell' that will destroy our society within the next 12 years is highly, highly unlikely. Per the evidence presented in the chart and table, we have survived warmer temperatures in the past, and will do so in the future because we've adapted and can now better cope with both higher and lower temperatures (thank the modern advances in technology, engineering, medicine, and food production and they will continue).

Note: Trend lines are not predictions. They provide a sense of direction from the past to a specific endpoint, but they provide absolutely no proof of what will take place in the future, especially with a global climate that is dominated by large natural oscillations and variations. NOAA web site that maximum temperature plots are available from.

[Note: Excel used to calculate 5-year temperature trends. Excel used to plot trends - HC4.6 global dataset. Trends are only temporary and not predictions. Climate change exists and constantly happens and warming has taken place since the Little Ice Age.]

What many journalists and politicians do not realize is that climate change warming is not global. At any given time, there are regions of the world that are warming, while at the same time other regions are either cooling or exist within a stable temperature range.

An example of the actual real-world climate regime is the South China Sea denoted by the accompanying chart.

A group of researchers from China produced a better methodology to reconstruct a historical dataset of sea temperatures for the month of March from 1893-2011.

"...above-average temperatures occurred in 1904-1913, 1929-1948, 1961-1973 and 1991-2006. Below-average temperatures, on the other hand, occurred in 1914-1925, 1949-1960, 1979-1990 and 2007-2011. What is particularly insightful about the reconstruction, however, is the absence of any apparent anthropogenic influence on the 119-year record of SST variability. In fact, there appears to be nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about current temperatures. Indeed, temperatures of the past four decades have remained relatively stable over the whole length of the record."

(click on to enlarge)

And on the other side of the world, we have the example of a cooling Ireland, which clearly seems to have missed this "global warming" that everyone in media, Hollywood, and D.C. continuously claim - obviously, without ever checking the actual evidence.

But, don't hold your breath expecting either the mainstream media or politicians or celebrities pushing the climate change alarmism to inform the public that "global warming" is not truly global.

Does AOC's (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) well publicized and dramatic prediction that climate-doomsday will strike humanity in a very short 12 years have any empirical validity?

If indeed that is the case, then surely global warming must be accelerating at a fevered rate that should easily be detected within today's known empirical measurement evidence, or not.

Per the CAGW hypothesis, the coming climate collapse prediction demands that the rapid global warming acceleration be closely linked with the undisputed continuous growth of atmospheric CO2 levels.

But does the empirical evidence support such a link?

The adjacent chart plots the global warming acceleration per century rates (12 month, 36 month, 60 month, and 120 month) using the HadCrut global temperature dataset through February 2019. In addition, the levels of atmospheric CO2 are plotted.

The temperature plots show a wide range of acceleration/deceleration, especially for the shorter time frames.

Viewing the chart (click on to enlarge), it becomes obvious that a major 12-month acceleration trend can turn quickly into a major deceleration trend - a 40 degree +/- change in direction is not uncommon.

Currently, both the 36-month (bright red) and 60-month (bright green) are exhibiting a cooling rate (respectively, a -5.9°C cooling/century rate and a -2.1°C cooling per century rate).

The 120-month acceleration rate is falling but still in warming mode at +2.6°C/century; and the 12-month acceleration rate of 10.9°C warming rate/century has reversed its trend from a -31.8°C cooling rate reached in December 2017.

Putting the current 120-month (i.e. 10-year) acceleration rate in context, as recently as October 2013 there existed a deceleration period - i.e. a minus cooling rate trend. In addition, the February 2019 rate is significantly below the highest warming peaks of November 1983, September 1988, and September 2002; and it is below the pre-1950's peaks of 1941 and 1916.

The good news is that there is no indication in the chart's plots that anything extraordinary is now taking place suggesting there is a total climate system of "rapid" accelerated warming. There is nothing there that would provide a reasonable rational basis for any fear of climate change destruction in 12 years.

Since the actual current trends do not support the AOC climate change doomsday claim, is there at least any empirical evidence that establishes a strong link between atmospheric CO2 levels and rapid acceleration of warming trends?

Nope.

The correlations between the CO2 levels and the rate of temperature increase is close to being nonexistent. For the 12-month rate the r2 is +0.0006; the 36-month r2 is +0.008; the 60-month rate r2 is +0.04; and the 120-month r2 is +0.14.

With such low r2's, the claim that CO2 levels are a dominant forcing which determine the rate of increase in global warming is a hypothesis without empirical clothing. And puts into serious question the validity of the overall CAGW hypothesis.

Conclusion: Based on an analysis of the gold-standard global temperature dataset and current atmospheric CO2 levels, there is conclusive evidence that acceleration/deceleration rates of temperature are within a natural variation range, with little to any apparent relationship or enhancement from greenhouse gases, such as CO2. Doomsday from CO2 greenhouse emissions within 12 years is beyond unlikely.

Both higher and lower temperature spans during pre-industrial periods are evident in the boreal forested areas of Quebec, Canada.

"Hoping to provide some additional knowledge of Holocene climate fluctuations in the boreal region of north-eastern Canada, the six researchers thus developed a new summer temperature proxy by analyzing chironomid assemblages from lake sediment cores obtained from Lac Aurelié. The new record spanned 8200 years with an average temporal resolution of 45 years."

During the Holocene Thermal Maximum, temperatures were approximately 0.9°C warmer than now; and during the Medieval Warming Period, temperatures were about 1.0°C higher than in modern era.

The Little Ice Age period from the 1400's to 1800's had summer temperatures cooler than modern era by 2.1°C.

"In light of the above findings, it would appear that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about current summer temperatures in central Quebec, which fall well within the range of natural variability for this area."

This article points out the fact that Europe has already experienced a 2 degree Celsius temperature increase since 1750, as shown in the chart on the right.

Yet, the predicted climate change apocalypse, cataclysm, disasters, calamities, tragedies, and destruction from the global warming 2°C meltdown have not taken place across Europe and don't seem likely to happen anytime in the near future.

Instead, as the left chart indicates, overall death rate has plummeted, along with an incredible increase of livelihood prosperity and health; and all the while when atmospheric levels of CO2 were growing fast. Way back in 1750, Europe was just starting to crawl out of the depths of Medieval backwardness with the onset of the Age of Enlightenment.

"In summary:

•We’ve done the two degree Celsius experiment.

• The lack of any climate-related catastrophes indicates that warming is generally either neutral or good for animal and plant life alike.

• Climate related deaths are only about a twentieth of what they were a hundred years ago.

• The people of the planet generally don’t see climate as an important issue. Fact Check: They are right."

What if another 2 degree increase occurs across Europe by 2100AD? Probably Europe will gain even more prosperity, health, and happiness and still without the doomsday scenarios portrayed by "experts."

The mainstream journalists have been reporting over the last 20 years that global warming was dangerously accelerating due to greenhouse gas emissions, primarily CO2.

They reported that this rapid temperature elevation would bring untold climate change disaster and calamity to humanity - per the climate model based speculations - if we did not cease using the fossil fuels that produced the CO2.

Yet, despite growing emissions that now surpass 400 ppm in the atmosphere, at the end of 2018, according to HadCrut annual global temperature dataset, the globe warmed by a measly +0.056°C since 1998 - not even a tenth of a degree over 20 years.

A nothing-burger.

(Note: see the +0.056°C increase on adjacent thermometer where the small white dots represent the 1998 temperature.)

If that 20-year amount of "warming" is repeated every 20 years, then by the end of 100 years, global warming would have increased a barely measurable +0.3°C degree. This is not your AOC's warming that will end the world in a short 12 years.

In addition, the last 20 years of actual warming does not match well with the predicted warming from the most sophisticated climate models' compilation. For the 20 years ending 2018, the models' approximate mean estimate of global warming is +0.50°C .

Thus, the expert predicted warming is roughly 8 times greater than actual.

All of the above tells one that actual warming has not been either extreme or dangerous.

This has been literally worry-free warming over the last 2 decades notwithstanding the climate model scenarios of excessive near-death-warming that must be upon us.

Besides the recent actual tiny warming, there also have been multiple peer-reviewed studies published over the last 12 months that establish catastrophic global warming to be more science fiction than scientific reality. For example:

SUMMARY: There exists no empirical evidence, nor research studies based on actual empirical evidence, indicating that humanity is being threatened by disastrous warming or associated climate change manifestations. On the contrary, real world indications are that natural climate changes do occur but they do not amount to the claimed existential menace, even with the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases. These facts confirm that proposed billions to trillions of American's dollars should not be spent on unproven and highly controversial attempts to fix what amounts to non-threatening global "warming" and mild climate "change."

North America (180-0°N, 15-60°N) has been characterized as a “major cooling center” by the authors of a new paper (Gan et al., 2019) published in Earth and Space Science...The continent warmed from 1982-1998, but a cooling trend since 1998 has nearly wiped out all the previous warming...Overall, there has been no significant temperature change in North America since 1982.

Climate science alarmists are devastated by these findings and are scrambling to smear its scientific authors rather than challenge the empirical evidence, one would imagine.

Then again, possibly the alarmists will finally admit defeat by accepting the skeptical AGW viewpoint - that CO2 is not the dominant forcing in climatic trends, it is a minor one at best.

The authors of this study assess the likely reason for the cooling as being a natural climate change phenomenon from one of the known natural oscillations/cycles.

This study should again confirm that current climate predictions from "experts" and their computer models have been fabulously wrong.

Conclusion: Politicians and bureaucrats should table any discussions and regulations in regards to actual climate and energy policies, since the assumptions and hypothesis being utilized are clearly without scientific merit.

A few days ago, we discussed Japan's cooling winter temperature trend and now it's Germany's turn. If Italy also develops a similar cooling trend, it will be the new #ClimateChange Axis, so to speak.

As usual, we are beating a dead horse - climate expert predictions that are based on the trace gas CO2 are worthless.

No climate or energy policy should ever be based on computer models that are focused on human emission of carbon dioxide. These models cannot simulate natural climate cycle variation at all and thus make for incredibly lousy prediction outputs.

Just another case of those stubborn facts getting in the way of pseudo science by simulation.

The Democrats are now pursuing a media propaganda strategy that purposefully misleads the American public with #hysterical claims about climate change.

The propaganda represents a 'truth-crisis' that has no basis in reference to empirical evidence.

Joe Bastardi, who has some 35 years of weather/climate forecasting at prominent organizations, provides the adjacent climate evidence that clearly debunks the cult-like nonsense about "disastrous" climate change impacts.

Top-Left: Global warming has not caused permanent droughts in the U.S. that are claimed by alarmists.

Essentially, we rely on accessible and affordable fossil fuels for almost everything we use and consume. The progressive elites and green leftists demanding we forsake fossil fuels are completely oblivious to to how intertwined they are in everyday modern existence.

There are no replacement alternatives that would provide the same comprehensive benefits serving humanity.

The failure of the climate "experts" to accurately predict short or long-term has been well documented in the past.

And this article points to the latest examples of such failure, which the #Dems and #Green #Socialists will again deny, despite the scientific empirical evidence. (That is what is called science denial.)

The climate prediction failure stream will continue until the point when the "science experts" finally realize that natural climate processes are the significant primary drivers of climate change and not the trace gas CO2.

Ad nauseam, the global warming and climate change alarmists tell the masses that the world will soon end - maybe in 12 years - due to such things as a global starvation event caused by droughts from human CO2. The actual scientific facts do not support this level of hysteria.

As this climate-alarmism skeptic reports, even the somewhat hysterical NOAA climate site displays real evidence that completely undercuts the notion that we are now experiencing the "disastrous" consequences of excessive amounts of the SUV CO2 trace gas molecule.

As most are aware, the Washington Post (WaPo) has become known as a major purveyor of climate fear mongering propaganda.

And this recent article is a perfect example of their predilection to do so, especially in regards to human CO2 emissions and the very speculative catastrophic global warming climate change said emissions will have.

But, if growing human-based CO2 emissions are the primary cause of disastrous climate change, why aren't they the primary cause for changes in atmospheric CO2 levels? (more on that later.)

Below is a quote from this article that exemplifies the propaganda that the world needs to drastically cut global emissions or ELSE.

“We are in trouble. We are in deep trouble with climate change,” United Nations Secretary General António Guterres said..."It is hard to overstate the urgency of our situation,” he said. “Even as we witness devastating climate impacts causing havoc across the world, we are still not doing enough, nor moving fast enough, to prevent irreversible and catastrophic climate disruption.”

The article is mostly void of any facts but certainly has plenty of fringe green activist estimates, projections, speculations, and "expert" opinions masquerading as facts. Observed empirical climate evidence was not a mainstay of the article.

One of their key "facts" presented at the beginning of the article is that global emissions for 2018 are projected to be 2.7% larger than 2017. Certainly sounds like an authoritative scientific fact until one reads much later in the article that maybe the 2018 emissions could be a much smaller global increase of only 1.8%.

Then again, maybe the final number will be +1.5% or maybe even +1.2%. Truth be told, no one knows for sure what the real number is at this time, although a more accurate number will likely be known by mid-2019.

Of course, the WaPo hopes that readers will walk away from this article with the thought that the estimated CO2 emission growth will lead to much higher CO2 atmospheric levels, thus resulting in the Earth suffering "calamitous" global warming outcomes.

Their hope is that readers will simply believe and not bother to check or question the lack of factual evidence supporting the underlying causation assumption.

When one does check the empirical evidence for the impact of annual CO2 emissions change on atmospheric CO2 levels an obvious disconnect becomes apparent - there is no significant impact of a specific percent increase in CO2 emissions and a subsequent percent increase in CO2 atmospheric levels (ppm).

In fact, as the above chart reveals, the correlation between the annual % increase of CO2 emissions and annual % rise of CO2 atmospheric levels is a ridiculously low with a r2 of +0.002. That is basically zero over the 53-year time span from 1966 through 2018 (assuming the WaPo 2018 estimate of 2.7% is correct).

The chart also depicts a declining linear trend for CO2 emissions while there is a slight increasing trend for CO2 levels, which is another indication that a positive correlation relationship between human emissions and CO2 levels is rather suspect.

For the WaPo's climate fear mongering apostles and recent converts, the lack of correlation seriously undercuts their faith in the 'CO2 Control Knob' hypothesis of climate change: the dogmatic faith that government bureaucrats can just turn a dial knob that decreases CO2 emissions by a certain percentage; the result being that atmospheric CO2 levels will respond by a certain lower percentage increase; and thus the desired climate result being less global warming.

If the "control knob" on CO2 emissions does not correlate at all with atmospheric CO2 levels, it's not very likely to correlate well with a specific percentage change in global temps.

Another way to examine the same datasets is plotting the annual changes of human emission CO2 tonnes versus the annual change in CO2 atmospheric levels (ppm). Again, the correlation might as well be zero due to an r2 of +0.041. (see below)

Again, how can this be if the control knob hypothesis relies on a strong change relationship between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels?

The empirical evidence does not lie, but since it is inconvenient, WaPo "journalists" just make it go away no matter the serious consequences. Just another case of those hated stubborn facts.

The Washington Post is infamous famous for assigning multiple 'Pinocchios' to a variety of claims that challenge their liberal-lefty-Democrat-progressive standard of "truth".

It's A '5-AOC' Rating

But a new standard of incredulity may need to be established beyond the simple 'lying-Pinocchio' for a growing onslaught of clown claims.

A possible contender for a standard is the '5-AOC' for those claims that makes one wonder if the specific person is just flat-out stupid, or embarrassingly ignorant, or extremely gullible, or hilariously hysterical, or may suffer from an indisputable facts allergy. Most importantly, the recipient of a '5-AOC' could be affected by all the above characteristics to varying degrees.

Of course, the honorary recipient for the very first '5-AOC' should be none other than the original A.O.C., Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. for her incredibly bizarre prediction that "the world is gonna end in 12 years" due to climate change from CO2-induced global warming.

For those millennial A.O.C. contemporaries who believe that the world's climate has changed immensely over the last 50 years, and is soon to be an uninhabitable climate disaster, the below image is based on the extreme hot and cold temperatures recorded, as tabulated by the UN's own World Meteorological Organization.

This world map image shows the year the hottest and coldest temperatures were recorded for each continent. For the record, the last "hottest" temperature for a major continent was recorded in 1982, which was 36 years (and billions and billions of CO2 emission tonnes) ago.

Does this mean the world is not warming?

No. It means that human CO2 emissions are not very climatic(ly) powerful since no new record-setting temperatures by continent have been recorded in over three decades.

Will there be new "hottest" temperatures recorded for the continents?

Yes. And it's primarily due to the fact that the natural climate forces can cause huge climatic fluctuations that are much more powerful than a trace gas emission produced by humans.

Are the majority of humans facing a catastrophic climate doomsday in 12 years?

Politicians across the political spectrum and across the globe are discovering how dumb it is to demand the average citizen pay a carbon tax.

Dumb because a carbon tax will not have a single impact on climate change, be it natural or man-made.

Dumb because it is widely unpopular due to its regressive nature, which punishes the non-wealthy to an excessively painful extent.

Plus, the average tax-paying citizen no longer believes the elites' hyperbole about climate change doomsday and global warming. The constant 'crying wolf' and then demanding more taxes in the next breath has proven time and again to be a politically losing proposition.

Even in the EU, the populace rejects having to pay higher taxes that will only enrich the establishment with more money and control. Noteworthy are the recent major protests in France regarding Macron's hydrocarbon tax. A levy that is boosting fuel costs for the masses, which has proven to be, not only wildly unpopular, but also deadly.

And in the U.S., politicians who push a carbon tax on the masses might as well not plan on getting elected the next time. A classic example is a GOP incumbent Latino in Florida who had all the right qualifications, except for his 2018 climate change tax stupidity - a political position of 'I am going to save the world and you will pay for it' that did not exactly resonate with voters.

When a politician chooses to advocate taxing his/her constituents more on a daily basis, one does not have to be a petroleum engineer to figure out that votes will not come gushing in for that politico.

Finally, if politicians were really serious about battling climate change with taxes, they would propose a climate change reparations surcharge tax on asset wealth. The 'asset wealthy' being not only individuals who own Teslas, but also foundations, endowments, religious institutions, and any other organization responsible for directly (or indirectly) using large amounts of fossil fuels.

A climate surcharge on the asset-rich, which would be unable to pass the surcharge taxes onto the masses via price increases. The asset-rich who will then deservedly become the elites' role models for saving the climate from their own doomsday scenarios.

Importantly, the mass of voters - conservative or progressive - would likely support that type of climate change tax in a heartbeat.

Research studies and actual climate change observations continue to confirm Trump's decision to pooh-pooh the alarmism and doomsday fears of both Democrats and the GOP-elites' never-Trumpers.

Adding to their joint misery is fact that Trump's energy policies are reducing U.S. CO2 emissions faster than their favored major country signatories of the UN's globalist Paris and Kyoto climate initiatives.

The first week's headlines after the November 2018 election do not provide a lot of comfort for moving forward; the next 2 years (103 weeks) are going to be brutal if below headlines are an indication.

Scientists investigated whether the expert climate change prediction that growing CO2 emissions, and the subsequent atmospheric increase of CO2, would cause an increase in the frequency and severity of large flooding.

The island nation of Fiji was chosen to validate the expert prediction due to a Fiji locality having 12 centuries decades of flood climate records.

And the result of this peer-reviewed investigative research of the supposed relationship between CO2 and flooding?

Even with a long-term record stretching across 12 centuries decades, the scientists were unable to find any validation of expert and climate model predictions that CO2 greenhouse gas warming produces an outcome of increased severe flooding.

The empirical CO2-warming and flooding relationship appears to be zero.

"...real scientists engaged in real research have used sound statistical methods to investigate this topic; and what they typically find does not bode well for climate alarmists.....performed a series of statistical analyses on these data, seeking to determine "whether the data set can reveal the degree to which islands in the Pacific are already seeing the impact of global climate change on the risk of severe flooding." Results of the analysis revealed that despite a persistent warming trend of ~0.18°C per decade over the past seven decades, there has been no consistent trend in flooding. Consequently, McAneney et al. matter-of-factly attest that they were "unable to detect any influence of global warming at this tropical location on either the frequency or the height of major flooding." What is more, they add that their study demonstrates "the difficulty of achieving statistical significance in terms of attribution of extreme weather even with relatively long data sets.""

Just another example of failed predictions based on the CO2-centric anthropogenic catastrophic global warming hypothesis.

The consensus regarding the catastrophic global warming hypothesis is completely reliant on a proposed positive feedback producing runaway global warming that will destroy human civilization. Simply, is it happening?

(click on to enlarge)

To answer that question, one can examine the HadCRUT4 (HC4) empirical climate surface temperature record in order to identify if a positive feedback is evident.

The positive feedback would reveal its existence if global temperatures were accelerating to a tipping point of runaway warming, due to the ever-increasing human CO2 emission releases into the atmosphere,

As done with a previous article involving the analysis of the satellite record of temperature acceleration warming trends, the same can be accomplished with the HC4 global dataset. Thus, this analysis will also focus on both short and long-term warming trends to determine whether a constant state of acceleration is present.

First, the chart on the right represents satellite short and long-term acceleration plots used in the prior article; the chart of the left plots the short and long-term warming per century acceleration rates derived from the HC4 land/sea global dataset.

To attain the best apple-to-apple comparison, both charts are based on a start date that coincides with the advent of the satellite measuring technology in 1979 and through month-end February 2018.

Visually, the chart similarities of the two different temperature measuring methodologies are striking.

When scrutinized closely, there are differences, but those would be expected when one methodology is measuring lower atmosphere temps and the other methodology is based on near-surface temps of land and water.

As found in the prior analysis of the lower atmosphere temperature record, global surface temperatures accelerate at a faster pace and then always decelerate to a slower pace that may even indicate the potential of a cooling climate regimen.

More importantly, the HC4 temperature dataset verifies what the prior article on the satellite dataset established: despite multiple major warming El Nino events, and with over 60% of all 1850-2016 total CO2 emissions being released since 1979, there is absolutely zero indication of a positive feedback's existence producing a runaway, "tipping point" warming acceleration.

On the contrary, as of February 2018, all 3 short-term temperature HC4 acceleration trends at the end of February 2018 are well below their respective beginning trend values; and the ending February 2018 long-term per century trend is practically the same as the beginning trend value.

This finding matches with what was identified in the previous satellite analysis.

Additionally, as noted at the bottom of each chart, the positive correlations between the rolling monthly temperature trends and the cumulative growth of CO2 levels (ppm) are empirically not much different from zero; plus, both the long-term satellite and surface global trends seemingly have an inverse relationship with accumulating CO2 gases (a possible explanation?).

If correlation is an indicator of potential causation, then one would need to look at an entirely different reason other than CO2 emissions for any attempt to justify a belief in the runaway global warming scenario.

Analysis Summary:

Since a dangerous accelerating climate warming simply does not exist after decades of vast amounts of human greenhouse emissions being released, it is fair to conclude that the consensus of a catastrophic runaway global warming is debunked and entirely without any empirical merit or validity.

It still remains mere speculation after all these years, and should possibly be considered another candidate for the ash heap of group-think "consensus science."

Note: Excel used to calculate trends and to plot. HC4 dataset. The satellite dataset is 50/50 weighting of the RSS and UAH datasets. Monthly CO2 dataset. Calculated trends do not predict the future trends.

Is there dangerous, human-caused global warming affecting the climate of the continental U.S.?

In a word: No.

As reported by NOAA, the adjacent plot of monthly 1,419 months) maximum temperatures experienced in the U.S. corn belt, a major agricultural breadbasket region, since 1900 is rather unremarkable.

As can be seen, maximum temperatures peak and then they don't.

The 5-yr average (60mth avg.) red curve tells the story: despite huge global emissions of the greenhouse gas, the U.S. breadbasket has a narrowly stable maximum temperature pattern.

And, amazingly, the maximum temperatures of this large region during the 21st century still DO NOT exceed those experienced in the early 20th century.

Conclusion: As discussed in the prior article, [Ed: meant to link to this prior article] unusual and unprecedented dangerous "global" climate warming is not close to being an empirical reality. As the U.S. corn belt reveals, every regional climate is different - they experience major warming and cooling periods for different reasons, at different times, and at different rates, regardless of the global atmospheric CO2 levels.

There is the following science consensus: the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has neverbeen empirically validated outside the confines of a computer simulation.

Essentially, across many parts of the world, the lack of warming and the lack of unusual warming - i.e. unprecedented, exceptional warming - confirms that the fear ofhuman CO2-driven catastrophic warming is likely very misplaced.

Similar to the recent scientific findings of unexceptional modern warming for many parts of the world, such as in the U.S., across Antarctica, and multiple other regions of the world, scientists in China have analyzed a 350+ year climate record and found modern warming is not unusual versus the warming of earlier periods in the record.

"In general, the average length of cold periods was shorter than that of warm periods. The cold period of 1869–1877 was the longest and coldest cool period had a mean of 17.63°C. The longest warm period extended from 1655 to 1668, and the warmest period in AD 1719–1730 had a mean of 20.37°C. However, we should point out that the rapid warming during the 20th century was not especially obvious in our reconstructed RLST."

The scientists also determined that human CO2 was not a factor driving the warming and cooling analyzed.

"Accompanied by significant peaks at 60.2 and 73 years, the continuously periodicities around 49–114 years in our regional temperature reconstruction might tentatively be related to PDO, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation...as well as solar activity...The AMO was an important driver of multidecadal variations in summer climate not only in North America and western Europebut also in the East Asia...The 60.2-year peak associated with AMO demonstrated that multidecadal variations in late summer temperature in the NWSP NWSP [northwestern Sichuan Plateau, China ] might be controlled by AMO."

This 2016 study from China adds to the enormous amount of empirical evidence demonstrating that an all encompassing modern "global" warming from human CO2 does not exist.

The scientific evidence is unequivocal: There exist huge regional climate swaths of the globe that have mildly warmed in an unexceptional manner during the modern industrial/consumer era; and there exist multiple large areas that even lack any regional climate-significant modern warming whatsoever.

One of the major tenets of the anthropogenic hypothesis of global warming is that the number of extremely hot days would increase, potentially causing catastrophic loss of life.

Such occurrences are the expected climate change manifestations from increasing CO2 emissions predicted by consensus experts and climate models.

But do these manifestations occur currently in a non-urban area with greater frequency than in years prior to modern global warming fears?

If CO2-driven global warming and climate change are as truly powerful and to be feared as many suggest, then the evidence of a greater frequency in the number of extreme hot days should be obvious.

As this article explains, there is a non-urban Japanese island (Hachijō Island) lying about 180 miles south of Tokyo in the Philippine Sea provides a long-term climate record of hot-day occurrences. (The island is administered by Tokyo.)

As in many countries, Japan uses the 30°C (86°F) minimum to designate an extreme 'hot day'.

The adjacent chart for the island identifies the number of 'hot and furious' periods going back to 1926 based on the 30°C criteria. For the 21st century specifically, including year 2000, there has been an average of 22.7 extreme hot days per year through 2017.

That's pretty high, especially when compared to the 1970's. But is that 22.7 number for the last 18 years unprecedented? Turns out the answer is 'no'.

The following 18-year periods, including 1929-1946, 1930-1947, 1931-1948, 1932-1949, 1933-1950, 1934-1951, 1935-1952, 1936-1953, 1937-1954, 1938-1955, 1939-1956, 1940-1957, 1941-1958, 1942-1959, 1943-1960, 1944-1961, and 1945-1962, had a higher average of hot days versus the 18-year period ending in 2017.

The 18-year span ending in 1958 had the absolute highest average count of extreme hot days - 25.8 days - per year.

What one can hypothesize from the above data and chart is that the huge growth of CO2 emissions has not produced the greater frequency of extreme hot days expected by experts. And also surmise that natural climate processes, for both the past and the present, are the responsible driver for periods with extreme hot weather events.

It should be noted that the modern count of extreme hot-day years has also been shown to be less in the modern U.S. era of high CO2 emissions when compared to the past.

This actual empirical evidence does refute the expert prediction that the frequency of extremely hot days across the globe would be a direct result of higher atmospheric CO2 levels. And although there certainly may well be regional areas of the world that have experienced a greater frequency - especially concrete/steel highly urbanized areas - there are indeed other areas of the world that have not.

Experts in sea level research did a focused analysis on the predicted sea level projections for California by activist groups. These groups are suggesting that sea level rise could be as much as 3 meters by year 2100 due to human CO2 emission release into the atmosphere.

This peer-reviewed study - from experts not associated with an activist agenda group(s) - determined that the alarmist predictions of dramatic increases of California sea levels 'hold no water'.

This chart is from their study analysis, along with the below stinging rebuttal to the activist groups.

"In summing up these and other of their several findings, Parker and Ollier write that "the evidences from real sea level measurements do not support the IPCC models or the even more alarming predictions [made by the National Research Council and California Ocean Science Trust]. The latter, "they continue, "are founded on pure speculation, constructed on unproven assumptions, and do not provide a suitable basis for use in planning or policy making.""

Connect-The-Dots: The NOAA temperature dataset for the U.S. reveals that for the last 22 years and 3 months, the U.S. continental temperature change has been cooling at a minus -0.02°F per decade.

The chart above was produced by NOAA at their 'Climate at a Glance' web page. In the upper right corner of the chart, NOAA shows its calculated per decade trend of -0.02°F for a period that spans 1996-2018.

After posting this chart and an accompanying article, it just seemed that something was likely wrong with the trend calculation produced by NOAA's web site.

After an Excel analysis of the absolute and anomaly temperature dataset, which can be downloaded from the same web page that produced the above chart, that NOAA trend calculation cannot be confirmed with any confidence. In fact, that NOAA decade trend calculation seems egregiously wrong and very misleading.

Thus, we replaced all of the article's text with the above explanation since the NOAA information looks to be incorrect. That is not to say definitively that they are wrong but that we are completely unable to replicate their calculated trend.

Lesson Learned: Don't trust government work - always double-check.

Note: Chart was produced at this NOAA climate page. Time period selected for the chart was from January 1996 through March 2018.

Climate simulation models have proven to be unreliable when their predictions, scenarios, projections, etc. are compared to the observed climate realities. A recent example is in regards to the waters surrounding Antarctica.

The Southern Ocean is comprised of 5 sub-regions. This study reviewed the empirical evidence of sea ice extent and found that 4 of the 5 sub-regions experienced an expanded sea ice extent and the Southern Ocean overall did likewise. The study confirms the growing scientific consensus that sea ice has increased since 1979.

In contrast to the climate models and their prognostications, these scientific observations of climate reality are opposite of what the models expected.

"Whatever the true cause or causes, one thing is certain, all of the climate models have failed to predict the observed increase in Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent. Rather, as reported in the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), CO2-induced global warming is supposed to reduce its extent by an average of between 16 and 67 percent in the summer and 8 to 30 percent in the winter by the end of the century (IPCC, 2013). Clearly, therefore, something must be fundamentally wrong with the climate models, for their predictions to be so far off from the observed sea ice trends."

Since climate models are dependent on the CO2 greenhouse gas being a major driving force in the simulations, it is not a surprise to those familiar with the subject that the simulated outputs continue to be deeply flawed.

Empirical evidence review: It has now been 30 years since the former chief NASA climate scientist, James Hansen, unleashed his climate apocalypse scenarios on the public in 1988 ... looking back, does the empirical evidence support the fears of "unprecedented" warming?

It has long been common knowledge among both scientists and laypeople that the world has been warming since the Little Ice Age (LIA) ended during the mid-1800s. In fact, from January 1850 through January 1988, the world had already warmed over 1 degree Celsius.

And it was in 1988 that James Hansen decided to present the case that this slow warming since the LIA was soon to become "unprecedented" due to CO2 emissions, thus causing untold climate chaos - i.e. boiling oceans, droughts, famines, Manhattan Island flooding along with other coastal regions, Earth turning into the next Venus, and etc.

Factually, the world has continued to warm since 1988, but is it "unprecedented" versus the climate warming of pre-1988?

It's not enough simply to claim the world is warmer, more important is to determine if temperatures changes are larger than ever.

To determine if today's global warming deserves to be considered unprecedented, an analysis of 30-year (360-month) climate temperature changes would be an effective means.

Using the gold-standard surface temperature record dataset, the HadCRUT4.6 global anomalies stretch back all the way to 1850.

We know from that dataset that the modern 30-year climate temperature change was +0.29ºC of warming at the end of February 2018. To clarify, that is the temperature warming change from February 1988 through February 2018.

That +0.29°C temperature since 1988 change took place in a global climate context that included not only the impact of multiple powerful El Niños, but also an atmosphere that was infused from 1989-2016 with over 50% of the total human CO2 emissions (metric tonnes) emitted since 1850.

Yet, despite all those CO2 emissions over the last 30 years, as the adjacent table reveals, there are 28 previous 30-year changes all ending in the month of February that exceed the "unprecedented" the most +0.29°C change.

All 28 of those 30-year temperature changes took place before the additional 50% of all CO2 emissions were released into the atmosphere.

By expanding the analysis to include all 12 months - not just the month February alone - there have been 247 monthly instances prior to 1988 when long-term the 30-year global temperature warming change exceeded that for February 2018.

In contrast to the above, the 30-year change in CO2 ppm as of February 2018 significantly exceeds all 30-year CO2 changes prior to 1988 without fail.

As an aside, in regards to the short-term, the 12-month global temperature change was a minus -0.32°C for the month-end of February 2018.

Conclusions:

True: The world has warmed since 1988 as the global temperature dataset establishes.

But, per the same empirical evidence, the current modern warming, as represented by 30-year temperature increases, is not in the least extreme, unusual, or unprecedented.

Prior to the additional 50% of total metric tonnes of CO2 emissions being added to the world's biosphere, global warming change easily matched or exceeded that experienced since 1988 - the year of NASA's James Hansen's predictions of climate apocalypse from human CO2.

Based on all the the gold-standard temperature measurements that the HadCRUT dataset provides, it is evident that periods of exceptional global warming changes (and the recent cooling temp changes) are more likely driven by natural forces than the ever-increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.

Note: Excel used to calculate 30-year temperature changes from the HadCRUT global land/sea dataset of temperature anomalies and past CO2 data (links found here). Left column of table are months of February and associated year; right column of table are the 30-year changes in temperature anomalies. Only chose to show the sub-list of February examples instead of all months, which was comprised of 247 in total.

The 1997-1998 El Niño versus the 2015-2016 event. How do they differ? How are they similar? The takeaway?

Now that the global HadCRUT4.6 dataset is available for February 2018, it is possible to examine a 4-year period for both El Niños, including the 'pre' and 'post' months for each.

These two major El Niño events do have some similarities as shown in their respective 4-year charts.

Besides the shared visual pattern of low-to-high-to-low similarity, the peak temperature for both periods came in the month of February (1998 & 2016).

For both, the beginning month (February 1996 and February 2014) were essentially identical: +0.32°C and +0.33°C.

And the end points displayed in the above charts are not dramatically different - there is only a +0.07°C gap between the higher February 2018 anomaly versus that of February 2000.

The small end point difference of only +0.07°C is rather surprising within the context of how much more peak warming took place in February 2016 (+1.11°C) versus February 1998 (+0.76°C).

Then there is a similarity of linear rate of warming for the 24 months leading up to the peak months of February 1998 and February 2016: +22.3°C per century versus +22.6°C, respectively.

Regarding the differences between the two phenomenons:

There is a large difference for the peak month anomaly of the respective Februaries (1998 & 2016). Indeed, a visually striking difference is apparent.

In addition, on average, the monthly anomalies of the 2014-2018 period are +0.35°C then for the 1996-2000 period. Visually, the entire curve for the later El Niño event has been shifted up.

With that said, when the anomalies for the 10-year period prior to February 1996 and February 2014 are compared, one finds that the later anomalies were, on average, +0.3°C higher than those of the earlier 10-year period.

Another difference is the overall warming trends exhibited during the two 4-year analysis periods. From February 1996 through February 2000, the warming rate is +3.6°C per century. The warming rate for the February 2014 through February 2018 is significantly lower at +0.72°C per century.

This substantially larger per century warming rate for the earlier event analysis period - ending in February 2000 - is rather unexpected given the typical mainstream headlines leading up to this last major El Niño.

Then there is the difference in how much the temperature anomaly has dropped since the peak month for each of these El Niños. For the 24-month period after the Feb. 1998 peak, the temperature anomaly dropped a -0.3°C. In contrast, the drop from the Feb. 2016 peak has been double the earlier period's - a drop of -0.6°C.

Finally, the deceleration of warming rates after the peak highs do differ but not excessively. For the 24-month span ending February 2000, the deceleration of warming from the February 1998 peak was a -18.81°C per century (i.e. cooling per century) versus a deceleration, from the 2016 peak, of -16.44°C per century ending February 2018.

The Takeaway?

There is no convincing evidence from the empirical temperature record to suggest that the differences/similarities are nothing more than the expected natural variation seen when comparing the two powerful natural climate/weather phenomenon.

There is no empirical evidence that higher CO2 levels resulted in the overall higher temp anomalies of the 2015-16 El Niño. With a monthly anomaly average being only +0.35°C higher, that is likely in the realm of natural variance.

As of yet, there is no empirical evidence that the powerful 2015-16 El Niño event resulted in any long-term climatic changes.

There is empirical evidence that this recent major El Niño temperature anomaly pattern of up/down and warming/cooling characteristics are similar to past natural El Niño events.

Does the empirical evidence support the belief that human CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere will directly cause an increase in forest fires from global warming?

As the above plots show, whether it's the U.S. national forests or the state owned properties in fire-prone California, the number of fires incidents has significantly declined starting with the 1980s. This has taken place during 50 years of the largest growth of atmospheric CO2 levels - the largest possibly for millions of years.

The chart plots are from the recent extensive peer-reviewed study published by forestry researchers.

"Both USFS and Cal Fire protected lands had the lowest number of fires in the early record but ignitions began to increase in the1960s and peaked between 1970 and 1990, subsequently declining on both USFS and Cal Fire lands. ... Major fires are dependent on the juxtaposition of such weather events with anthropogenic ignitions. Future fire regimes will be less affected by global warming than by other global changes, in particular population growth, because over 95% of ignitions are due to humans. As populations increase we expect a greater chance of ignitions during severe fire weather conditions."

The expert and climate model predictions of CO2 and global warming wreaking fire havoc upon forested areas is absolutely without convincing empirical evidence. All facts point to an overall improvement in the count and extent of forest fire destruction since the peak destruction experienced during the early decades of the 20th century.

The empirical evidence strongly indicates an inverse correlation between CO2 levels and deaths from climate.

The adjacent chart superimposes annual atmospheric CO2 levels onto a chart that Bjorn Lomborg produced on his Facebook page. H/T

Since 1920, while climate-related deaths have plummeted, the deaths from non-climate related natural events has essentially hovered in a narrow range.

Yet, from 1920-2017, the atmospheric CO2 levels has grown an exceptional amount at an exceptional speed. A growth that has primarily attributed to the modern industrial/consumer combustion of fossil fuels.

That is the undeniable empirical evidence that lays total waste to the anti-science beliefs and doomsday claims of celebrity-seeking individuals who populate Washington D.C., Hollywood, ivory towers, and etc.

It's just another example of 'elites' failing to connect the real science dots.

Simple Summary: The trace greenhouse gas CO2 should not be feared as some sort of death-machine unleashed by humans. Instead the empirical evidence suggests it is an indication of civilization advancement and the life-saving achievements it produces.

The case of the dissolving starfish: Often, the actual science regarding research studies is misreported by the institutions - i.e. academia - that publish press releases on studies they have sponsored, which then the journalists spread and propagandize for their readers and viewers

A recent example of misreporting are the "scientific" news stories based on a study's press release that increased ocean acidification, presumably from human CO2 emissions, was dissolving the poor coastal starfish population.

Turns out, per an analysis of what this latest starfish scientific study actually stated, the research said nothing of the sort.

The news stories about the dissolving starfish represent reporting practice that is frequent and purposefully designed to mislead the public and policymakers.

In contrast, when ocean acidification research is well-conducted and well-reported, the opposite conclusion about the impact of lower pH levels is usually the result.

"In light of these several findings, the Australian, New Zealand and U.S. researchers felt safe in stating that the sea urchins "did not only persist but actually 'thrived' under extreme conditions." And why was this so? Uthicke et al. opine that it was because (6) "increased algal productivity under increased pCO2 [Ed: increasing water acidification] provided more food at the vent, resulting in higher growth rates." And in light of this likelihood, they conclude their paper by stating that the processes they studied "are best identified in natural settings ... where ecosystems and individuals are exposed throughout their life to conditions similar to those in future oceans.""

Unfortunately, the journalistic practice of relying on questionable press releases is widespread, thus leading "journalists" to embellish and promulgate fake science and, of course, leading to ludicrous fear-mongering. The case of the "dissolving starfish" is a classic example.

Per our prior article, an examination of the empirical evidence for atmospheric warming was done to determine if Earth had crossed the 'tipping point' red line. This article drills down further to look at specific data points.

The adjacent chart - using the same information as before - narrows the focus down to a few specific markers of both short-term and long-term global warming acceleration.

Besides showing the cumulative CO2 growth, this chart depicts the plots (pinkish circles sans the connecting curve lines) of the 12-month, 24-month, and 36-month rolling per century warming acceleration trends

On the chart, the 12-month first and last calculated trend points are marked as red dots; for the 24-month first and last, the representation marks are the blue dots; and for the 36-month first and last, those are designated by the two bright green circles.

Clearly, despite the substantial increase of atmospheric CO2 levels from 1979 to 2018, all the ending acceleration trend points of February 2018 are actually lower than the very first trend points for each short-term period.

Moving on.

The chart's aqua colored trend line is constructed using the 240-month rolling calculated trends (the count of calculated trend points making up the aqua line is 231). The aqua colored triangles mark the first, last, and highest calculated warming trend points.

For the long-term, the empirical evidence confirms that the February 2018 acceleration trend of 1.17°C per century is lower than both the beginning trend value of 1.74°C and the highest trend value reached way back in April 2004 of 2.52°C per century.

One could surmise that this result is climate evidence of a long-term atmospheric negative feedback mechanism in play.

Conclusion: For a tipping point and/or runaway warming to be reached, and then survive, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis demands that the lower troposphere warms in a consistent and accelerating mode, due to the hypothetical positive atmospheric feedbacks supposedly produced from fossil fuel CO2 emissions. As this analysis substantiates what the prior article had found, the current climate "tipping point" claims and/or concerns are completely without empirical evidence merit or, if you prefer, categorically factless.

Note: This analysis of the empirical data from January 1979 through 2018 is about the past, and it should not be interpreted as a future prediction of climate change/response. Excel was used to calculate and plot the multiple rolling/moving LT temperature trends and monthly CO2 cumulative totals.

Every time there is a "hottest" day, a "warmest-than-ever" month, or an extended period of quickly rising global temps, there are many who instantly claim that the world has reached a runaway climate change condition, or a global warming tipping point, or a soon to be doomsday, a no-return cascade turning Earth into the next Venus.

Hyperbole or fact?

The adjacent graph is one that we have produced in the past. Every few months it is updated in the quest of finally identifying the no-return doomsday tipping point that so many celebrities, journalists, and politicians fear and speak of.

The per century trends plotted are derived from the gold-standard NASA satellite atmospheric - i.e., lower troposphere (LT) - temperature measurements. The measurements are produced by two organizations - RSS and UAH - and the graph's trend plots represent a 50/50 average of those RSS/UAH published datasets since 1979.

As the plots make abundantly clear, since the inception of satellite measurements, LT short-term temperature trends go up and then they go down. The LT temperatures regularly have an acceleration spike and then a subsequent deceleration spike follows.

These acceleration and deceleration trends obviously follow some sort of cyclical pattern that are completely divorced from the incessant growth of atmospheric CO2 and/or other human-based activities.

Those are the stubborn facts, with the end result being that nature totally trumps human influence in regards to climate.

Conclusion? And the "tipping point" remains nothing more than factless hyperbole.

Note: This analysis of the empirical data from January 1979 through 2018 is about the past, and it should not be interpreted as a future prediction of climate change/response. Excel was used to calculate and plot the multiple rolling/moving LT temperature trends and monthly CO2 cumulative totals.

What does the science say in regards to the effect of elevated CO2 on major food sources across the globe?

It is well known that airborne CO2 acts as a vegetation fertilizer, which fortunately for the world, has produced a vast 'greening' of nature. Some 70% of greening is attributed to increased CO2 fertilization say the NASA researchers.

In regards to agriculture crops, a new study has again determined that increased CO2 will produce greater yields.

"Rice is the most consumed staple crop in the world and maize is close behind in rank as the third most important cereal crop. Their annual yields are consumed by billions of persons worldwide.....Pingale et al. report that elevated CO2 positively influenced the growth and productivity of both crops. Plant growth and yield parameters such as leaf area, stem dry weight, panicle dry weight, cob dry weight and grain number per cob were all significantly increased under elevated CO2. And the end result of these several enhancements was a CO2-induced increase in both rice and maize grain yield."

The included column chart from the study depicts the yield increases for both crops.

Similar to the current "expert" climate/energy policies being pushed on the unsuspecting citizens of multiple countries, the expert health policies pushed on the masses for the last 50+ years have been based on a dogmatic, consensus belief in a questionable hypothesis.

More on that specific hypothesis later.

In the U.S., starting with the 1970s, the air and water quality has been dramatically improving; the number of people who smoke has dropped like a stone; the pharmaceutical/medical/health care research complex has produced wondrous solutions for communicable diseases; and yet, despite all that good news, the overall health of Americans and their lifespans have in some respects actually declined.

As the chart depicts, the U.S. growth trend of chronic diseases (cancers, diabetes, heart disease, brain dysfunctions, stroke, and etc.) is at unsustainable levels, and it's just as bad all across the globe:

Now, combine that with the chronic obesity epidemic - here and across the world. Is it any wonder that health care expenses are causing havoc for even the stoutest of economies?

Where did this explosion in growth of global chronic diseases come from?

Well as the latest scientific evidence is revealing, this unstoppable growth of chronic diseases is most likely a direct result of U.S politicians and government bureaucrats - during the '70's decade - accepting and promoting a very weak speculative research hypothesis. A hypothesis that had not been validated by any rigorous scientific evidence*.

That hypothesis, in it's most simplest terms, was the notion that eating fat and cholesterol killed people.

This acceptance and promotion of an unproven hypothesis lead to a dogmatic, consensus belief by doctors and dietitians that everyone needs to replace fats with carbohydrates.

And that became the foundation of the well promulgated high-carb and low-fat food pyramid concept, resulting in "experts" actually believing a breakfast of Pop Tarts and orange juice was more "healthy" than eggs, bacon, and black coffee.

The unintended consequence of this highly speculative hypothesis is our global epidemic of poor health and overweight. This epidemic was first identified around 1980 and by 1988 the CDC started the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Yet the vast majority of doctors and dietitians still push on their patients the orthodox treatments and recommendations based on a bogus hypothesis, or if you prefer, junk science. (Go here to read about how wedded and malevolent the medical and dietitian establishments are in regards to protecting their consensus anti-science.)

The history, the politics, the narrative, and the lack of robust, proven scientific research supporting the entire consensus nutrition/diet framework is frankly eye-opening.

And surprise, it has an incredible amount of similarities with the consensus narrative, politics, advocacy, and policy tactics based on the unvalidated and unproven CO2 hypothesis of global warming and climate change.

Two recent excellent reads on the unscientific diet/nutrition science, and the biased politics involved, can be read about here and here.

Not to be forgotten, the consensus politics of climate science is also very vitriolic and intimidating.

*The recent recommendations of America's 'Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee', in regards to both dietary cholesterol and fat, substantiates that the original research behind the consensus health/nutrition policies was neither robust nor statistically/clinically significant.

Expert predictions about the negative impacts of climate change on bird populations are assessed in this study.

The scientists investigated the bird species that populate the mountain habitats of the Pacific Northwest. These habitats are considered by wildlife experts to be "among the most immediately susceptible to [the] effects of climate change."

Was the "expert" prediction correct that modern climate change (i.e., global warming) would have a significant negative impact on bird specie populations?

In fact, this peer-reviewed analysis determined that modern climate change was not negatively impacting these vulnerable habitats and bird populations.

".....the team of ten researchers conducted a total of 8404 point-count surveys at 3177 distinct survey point locations across the three parks during the breeding seasons of 2005-2014. From those surveys, 39 species (24 migratory and 15 "residents" that overwinter in the parks) were identified for population stability analyses."....."all but one species were either stable or increasing across the sampled points in the three parks" throughout the period of study (see Figure 1 below). Furthermore, the authors say they "found little evidence for upslope range shifts across the sampled region," adding that "no species increased at higher elevations while declining at lower elevations."

Based on this study's results, one could surmise that modern climate change has been of benefit to the bird species in the Pacific Northwest.

China must not have gotten the climate model memo that all hailstorms were ordered to be more severe and to produce a greater amount of damage.

Those "expert" climate models tell us what is supposed to happen in the world's climate due to the impact of human-induced global warming. Yet it seems that the models as climate soothsayers of severe weather events are essentially worthless.

Case in point, a new peer-reviewed study has examined the factual evidence regarding the increased frequency and increased intensity of hail storms that CO2-centric, global warming climate models predict; and the study has found the predictions to be without merit.

"A test of this model-based hypothesis was recently performed by Ni et al. (2017) for China. Using data from 2,254 locations that they obtained from the Chinese National Meteorological Information Center, the eight researchers examined trends in both the occurrence of hail days (frequency) and the mean size of hail (intensity) over the period 1980-2015"..."Ni et al. conclude that these observational changes "imply a weakened [frequency and] intensity of hailstorms in China in recent decades." And that finding does not bode well for climate models, which predict that just the opposite should be occurring."

The study's graphs depict that over the last 35 years the large-sized hail stones that wreak the most havoc on property and agriculture have been trending smaller, not larger across all recorded storms from the reporting 2,254 weather stations.

In addition, during the same extended period, the proportion of all hail storms that produce the extremely large stones has been clearly trending down.

The opinions on climate change from analysts, researchers, and academics continue to change as the evidence of global warming - or lack thereof - is presented.

This recent article reminds readers that global warming is not a 'global' phenomenon since many areas of the world exhibit cooling, as the adjacent image reveals.

Then there is this recent article that refers to a published peer-reviewed study by a group of climate scientists who have found the current land-based temperature measurement capabilities to be less than stellar and even unsatisfactory in many cases. The scientists go on to suggest an alternative measuring methodology being deployed globally that the U.S. has already developed.

Finally, there is this recent article indicating the forever changing "settled science" in regards to the predicted influence of CO2 on global warming. As the evidence grows that global warming has not been as great, nor as fast, as the climate models predicted, the experts (and the IPCC) have been continually forced to reduce their estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2.

Conclusion? Much to the dismay of many, the actual "global warming" is having a significant impact on science in a way they did not want. It's just another case of those stubborn facts that so often plague the elites.

Or, to put it another way: climate doomsday is delayed for another millennium.

China is the 4th largest country in terms of geographical size and the largest in population size. Accordingly, human-induced climate change from greenhouse trace gases would be of major concern to China's leaders. So, what does a fact check reveal of China's modern climate change due to human Co2 emissions?

Frankly, little, if any, emission impact on present climate change based on new Chinese peer-reviewed research.

(click on charts to enlarge)

The chart on the left represents a 341-year proxy temperature reconstruction for the southwest region of China.

Clearly, unprecedented temperatures occurred during the mid to late 1700s. This record shows that modern temperatures, which supposedly have been influenced by human emissions, are yet to rival temperatures from much earlier periods.

Also, one can discern a cyclical pattern that the study's scientists attributed to nature climate oscillations - trace greenhouse gases do not explain this periodical climate pattern.

The chart on the right represents a 500-year streamflow analysis for a western region of China.

Again, a pattern of constant change, from low to high to low, appears to be due to natural climate variations. The late 20th and early 21st century observations seem remarkably similar to those in the distant past, suggesting that Co2 emissions are not a factor influencing streamflow.

Fact Check: As these two studies from China indicate, modern industrial/consumer emissions from fossil fuels are not a major component of climate change. This research adds to the huge compilation of prior peer-reviewed studies that confirm modern climate change is not out of the ordinary, and highly likely due to natural causes, not human-induced as speculated my many.

Satellites, the advanced gold-standard technology that humanity has used to explore the moons, the planets, the solar system and beyond, are also widely deployed to explore Earth and its atmosphere. A key empirical satellite measurement that especially interests the scientific community is the global warming of the lower troposphere (LT) . This empirical evidence is critical to determine if catastrophic global warming beliefs are rational and deserving a response.

The widely held global warming belief is that human Co2 greenhouse gases will soon cause, via a positive feedback loop, a rapid tipping point warming of the lower atmosphere, resulting in a destruction of Earth's surface and an eventual decimation of civilization. Many who believe in this catastrophic global warming scenario even speak of the potential of Earth becoming another uninhabitable Venus.

As it turns out, satellites are situated perfectly to be the premier 24/7 monitoring system of the atmosphere, thus allowing scientists to measure and watch for a constant warming acceleration - i.e., indicating the existence of the hypothetical tipping point.

Over the last 3 full years, the satellites have measured a lower atmosphere (aka LT) temperature that has exceeded past temperatures of the previous 36 years. The same 3-year warmest temperature phenomenon has also been experienced on Earth's surface.

In the case of the lower atmosphere, the temperature rise has been about a half-degree Celsius - that's during almost 4 decades of satellite measurements. The increase possibly has raised the absolute lower atmosphere temps to about -4.0°C, which is still significantly below zero.

Conclusion #1: The absolute temperature of the lower atmosphere has not been raised significantly despite multiple decades of human Co2 emissions. The current level of LT temperatures are not likely in the least to produce an imminent global warming catastrophe, nor a feared "tipping point."

The included chart plots both the temperature anomalies (column plots) over the last 3 warm years and the moving 36-month (3-year) per century warming/cooling rate of the LT.

Yet, despite the last three years being the warmest in terms of satellite measurements, the plot of the rate of global warming per century has collapsed over the last three years. Instead of the proposed positive feedback producing ever faster atmospheric temperature increases, the plot reveals a very strong warming trend that accelerated during the 2015/16 El Nino phenomenon, which then quickly decelerated to a per century trend of 4.3 degrees Celsius - and, in the recent past, similar deceleration patterns have lead to outright negative per century cooling trends.

Conclusion #2: There is absolutely zero empirical evidence from the most advanced and sophisticated scientific technology available that Co2 emissions produce a constant positive atmospheric feedback leading to an ever faster acceleration of global warming. The familiar strong acceleration and then strong deceleration repeating pattern is representative of natural climate variation, not of a human-induced runaway overheating of the climate.

Conclusion #3: Since Conclusions #1 and #2 are derived from the actual empirical science evidence, policymakers at the national, state, and local levels have no rational basis to make large expenditures and impose unnecessary regulations in an attempt to stop what has now become a fact-less, irrational, anti-science belief of human-caused catastrophic global warming and climate change "tipping points."

Notes: In the earlier version of this article, the wrong chart was used. The satellite temperature anomalies and 3-year warming trends calculated and plotted using Excel; datasets used to produce monthly anomalies in an equal-weighted combination of two satellite datasets - RSS and UAH. From Dec. 1979 to Dec. 2017, the LT anomaly increase of the combined average dataset was +0.54 degree Celsius. The satellite acceleration/deceleration climate pattern in the past has ranged from a +24.0ºC to a -23.1ºC per century trend for 36-month periods. Observed measurements represent scientific empirical evidence. Climate models are not scientific empirical evidence but instead just formula-based speculative prediction/forecasting tools that are unable to accurately portray future climate conditions. At best, climate models are 'what-if' scenario generators that are not capable of identifying the actual future 'what-if' real-world outcome.